Search: penalty u/s 271 | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

Search Judgments
Browse by Bench
Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

23 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 273clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi274 Mumbai227 Karnataka122 Bangalore102 Jaipur91 Indore79 Ahmedabad51 Chennai34 Lucknow30 Kolkata26 Hyderabad23 Pune18 Visakhapatnam17 Kerala14 Cochin12 Chandigarh12 Agra8 Surat8 Amritsar7 Rajkot6 Panaji5 Nagpur4 Raipur4 Cuttack3 Patna2 SC2 Jabalpur1 Jodhpur1 Guwahati1 Telangana1 Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 37(1)18 Section 44A14 Addition to Income14 Section 271B12 Section 40A(2)12 Section 26310 Section 143(1)9 Search & Seizure7 Section 271

SRI ADITYA HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 230/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Sri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Sri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

Showing 1–20 of 23 · Page 1 of 2

6

u/s 263 of the Act”. In our view, the above said finding is self-contradictory, as the ld.PCIT himself records that PCIT has the power to record the satisfaction and impose the penalty. In the present case, the ld.PCIT has not recorded satisfaction in the impugned order nor he had initiated and imposed the penalty himself. Quite contrary

SRI ADITYA HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 231/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Sri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Sri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

u/s 263 of the Act”. In our view, the above said finding is self-contradictory, as the ld.PCIT himself records that PCIT has the power to record the satisfaction and impose the penalty. In the present case, the ld.PCIT has not recorded satisfaction in the impugned order nor he had initiated and imposed the penalty himself. Quite contrary

PACC CONTAINER LINE PTE LIMITED ,SINGAPORE REP BY ITS INDIAN AGENT M/S J M BAXI & CO ,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS ,(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) , NELLORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 550/HYD/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri T. Sunil Goutam

Section 172Section 194

u/s 172 of the Act either before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) or before the Tribunal. He had drawn our attention to section 246 of the I.T. Act which provides as under : “Appealable orders. 246. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), any assessee aggrieved by any of the following orders of an Assessing Officer (other than

PACC CONTAINER LINE PTE LIMITED,NELLOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NELLORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 25/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri T. Sunil Goutam

Section 172Section 194

u/s 172 of the Act either before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) or before the Tribunal. He had drawn our attention to section 246 of the I.T. Act which provides as under : “Appealable orders. 246. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), any assessee aggrieved by any of the following orders of an Assessing Officer (other than

PACC CONTAINER LINE PTE LIMITED,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NELLORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 26/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri T. Sunil Goutam

Section 172Section 194

u/s 172 of the Act either before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) or before the Tribunal. He had drawn our attention to section 246 of the I.T. Act which provides as under : “Appealable orders. 246. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), any assessee aggrieved by any of the following orders of an Assessing Officer (other than

PACC CONTAINER LINE PTE LIMITED,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NELLORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 27/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri T. Sunil Goutam

Section 172Section 194

u/s 172 of the Act either before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) or before the Tribunal. He had drawn our attention to section 246 of the I.T. Act which provides as under : “Appealable orders. 246. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), any assessee aggrieved by any of the following orders of an Assessing Officer (other than

PACC CONTAINER LINE PTE LIMITED ,SINGAPORE REP BY ITS INDIAN AGENT M/S J M BAXI & CO,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS ,(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NELLORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 551/HYD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri T. Sunil Goutam

Section 172Section 194

u/s 172 of the Act either before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) or before the Tribunal. He had drawn our attention to section 246 of the I.T. Act which provides as under : “Appealable orders. 246. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), any assessee aggrieved by any of the following orders of an Assessing Officer (other than

NAVEEN KUMAR KAPARTHY,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1660/HYD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey

Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

section 271B of the Act would not apply. 5.1 In the instant case, when the books of account are not maintained, the AO did not initiate any proceedings for not maintaining the books of account. The AO obviously satisfied that the books of account were not maintained for good and sufficient reasons. When the AO accepted the fact that

NAVEEN KUMAR KAPARTHY,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1659/HYD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey

Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

section 271B of the Act would not apply. 5.1 In the instant case, when the books of account are not maintained, the AO did not initiate any proceedings for not maintaining the books of account. The AO obviously satisfied that the books of account were not maintained for good and sufficient reasons. When the AO accepted the fact that

APACHE FOOTWEAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MAMBATTU VILLAGE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE-1(1), TIRUPATI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 385/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Kuriachan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 13Section 144CSection 5

273 - ITAT Delhi held that by issuing demand notice along with draft assessment order. the Assessing Officer by passed the mandatory sub sections of section 144C of the Act and set aside the order. 7. The Appellant rely upon the following Hon'ble Tribunal and High Court decisions rendered in similar to the case of the Appellant

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. HSBC ELECTRONIC DATA PROCESSING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1632/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR

Section 10ASection 115Section 115JSection 251(1)(a)Section 37(1)Section 41(1)

273) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that Minimum Alternative Taxes (MAT) under section 115]B of the Act is a self-contained code and the AO has no jurisdiction to alter the book profit except to the extent provided in the explanation to section 115JB of the Act; Disallowances of expenditures: ITA Nos.1613 & 1632/Hyd/2017 Page

M/S HIGHGRACE INVESTMENTS PVT LTD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of assessee for AY

ITA 114/HYD/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Aug 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiahappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik, DR

Section 37(1)Section 40A(2)

273/-. On verification of the expenses of Rs. 29,53,079/- debited under the head ‘Administrative and other expenses’, it was found by AO that a sum of Rs. 18 Lakhs was claimed towards service charges paid to M/s. SRSR Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd., [SRSR]. It was explained by assessee that the said service charges were paid for the services

M/S HIGH GRACE INVESTMENTS PVT.LTD.,,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of assessee for AY

ITA 619/HYD/2008[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Aug 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiahappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik, DR

Section 37(1)Section 40A(2)

273/-. On verification of the expenses of Rs. 29,53,079/- debited under the head ‘Administrative and other expenses’, it was found by AO that a sum of Rs. 18 Lakhs was claimed towards service charges paid to M/s. SRSR Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd., [SRSR]. It was explained by assessee that the said service charges were paid for the services

M/S HIGHGRACE INVESTEMENTS PVT.LTD.,,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of assessee for AY

ITA 590/HYD/2006[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Aug 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiahappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik, DR

Section 37(1)Section 40A(2)

273/-. On verification of the expenses of Rs. 29,53,079/- debited under the head ‘Administrative and other expenses’, it was found by AO that a sum of Rs. 18 Lakhs was claimed towards service charges paid to M/s. SRSR Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd., [SRSR]. It was explained by assessee that the said service charges were paid for the services

M/S HIGHGRACE INVESTEMENTS PVT.LTD.,,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of assessee for AY

ITA 733/HYD/2006[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Aug 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiahappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik, DR

Section 37(1)Section 40A(2)

273/-. On verification of the expenses of Rs. 29,53,079/- debited under the head ‘Administrative and other expenses’, it was found by AO that a sum of Rs. 18 Lakhs was claimed towards service charges paid to M/s. SRSR Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd., [SRSR]. It was explained by assessee that the said service charges were paid for the services

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

ITA 80/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CA &For Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT(DR)

273/- in F.Y.2008-09 (A.Y.2009-10). Following up, in the assessment proceedings - where the assessee in the face of an enquiry by the Assessing Officer found it necessary to withdraw certain expenditure claimed in the same Indore project for similar reasons, the admission related to F.Y.2008-09 (A.Y.2009-10) amounting to Rs.1,18,16,873/- and F.Y.2009-10 (A.Y.2010-11) amounting to Rs.30

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

ITA 77/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CA &For Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT(DR)

273/- in F.Y.2008-09 (A.Y.2009-10). Following up, in the assessment proceedings - where the assessee in the face of an enquiry by the Assessing Officer found it necessary to withdraw certain expenditure claimed in the same Indore project for similar reasons, the admission related to F.Y.2008-09 (A.Y.2009-10) amounting to Rs.1,18,16,873/- and F.Y.2009-10 (A.Y.2010-11) amounting to Rs.30

NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

ITA 74/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CA &For Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT(DR)

273/- in F.Y.2008-09 (A.Y.2009-10). Following up, in the assessment proceedings - where the assessee in the face of an enquiry by the Assessing Officer found it necessary to withdraw certain expenditure claimed in the same Indore project for similar reasons, the admission related to F.Y.2008-09 (A.Y.2009-10) amounting to Rs.1,18,16,873/- and F.Y.2009-10 (A.Y.2010-11) amounting to Rs.30

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

ITA 78/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CA &For Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT(DR)

273/- in F.Y.2008-09 (A.Y.2009-10). Following up, in the assessment proceedings - where the assessee in the face of an enquiry by the Assessing Officer found it necessary to withdraw certain expenditure claimed in the same Indore project for similar reasons, the admission related to F.Y.2008-09 (A.Y.2009-10) amounting to Rs.1,18,16,873/- and F.Y.2009-10 (A.Y.2010-11) amounting to Rs.30

NCC LIMITED, ,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

ITA 73/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CA &For Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT(DR)

273/- in F.Y.2008-09 (A.Y.2009-10). Following up, in the assessment proceedings - where the assessee in the face of an enquiry by the Assessing Officer found it necessary to withdraw certain expenditure claimed in the same Indore project for similar reasons, the admission related to F.Y.2008-09 (A.Y.2009-10) amounting to Rs.1,18,16,873/- and F.Y.2009-10 (A.Y.2010-11) amounting to Rs.30